alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010161EN.01001002.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (C-536/08), fiscale eenheid Facet BV/Facet Trading BV (C-539/08)

(Joined Cases C-536/08 and C-539/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2) and (3) - Article 28b(A)(2) - Right to deduction - Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States - Place of the intra-Community acquisitions of goods)

(2010/C 161/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendants: X (C-536/08), fiscale eenheid Facet BV/Facet Trading BV (C-539/08)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Den Haag) — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (3) and Article 28b(A)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States — Place of intra-Community acquisitions of goods

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 17(2) and (3) and 28b(A)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person coming within the situation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(2) does not have the right immediately to deduct the input value added tax charged on an intra-Community acquisition.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bing Yeh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:
5. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
6. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
7. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and
8. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
9. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
10. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 15, 2004



|/s/ Bing Yeh                                  
|----------------------------------------------
|Bing Yeh
President and Chief Executive Officer

---
# C_2021044EN.01001102.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autostrada Torino Ivrea Valle D’Aosta — Ativa S.p.A. v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di regolazione dei trasporti

(Case C-835/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Award of concession contracts - Directive 2014/23/EU - Article 2(1), first subparagraph - Article 30 - Freedom of awarding authorities to define and organise the procedure leading to the selection of the concession holder - National legislation prohibiting the use of project financing for motorway concession contracts)

(2021/C 44/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autostrada Torino Ivrea Valle D’Aosta — Ativa S.p.A.

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di regolazione dei trasporti

Intervening parties: Autorità di bacino del Po, Regione Piemonte

Operative part of the order

Must the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, read in conjunction with Article 30 and recitals 5 and 68 of that directive, be interpreted as not precluding a national provision prohibiting awarding authorities from granting expired or expiring motorway concessions using the project financing procedure laid down in Article 183 of decreto legislativo n. 50 — Codice dei contratti pubblici (Legislative decree No 50 establishing the public procurement code), of 18 April 2016.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 111 

To prohibit a Federal agency from establishing or implementing a policy 

that discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation destination as the location for a conference or event, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit a Federal agency from establishing or implementing a policy that discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation destination as the location 

for a conference or event, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect America’s Cit5 ies from Government Blacklist Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 111 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN TRAVEL AND CON2 FERENCES POLICIES OF AGENCIES OF THE 

3 UNITED STATES. 

4 An agency of the Government of the United States 

5 may not establish or implement a policy that discourages 

6 or prohibits the selection of a location for travel, an event, 

7 a meeting, or a conference because the location is per8 ceived to be a resort or vacation destination. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement No. 333-59397 on Form S-3 and the Registration Statement No. 333-56591
on Form S-8 of Williams  Controls,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  of our reports dated
December 18, 1997,  which appear in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 1998.



/s/ Horwath Gelfond Hochstadt Pangburn & Co.
--------------------------------------------

HORWATH GELFOND HOCHSTADT PANGBURN & CO.

Denver, Colorado
December 22, 1998
# C_2018094EN.01003401.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/34

---

Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)

(Case T-30/18)

(2018/C 094/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 371 591-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in Case R 1017/2017-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible;

| — | order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002;

| — | Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard;

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002

---
# C_2020137EN.01004403.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco, S.A. v SO, TP

(Case C-497/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
# C_2020287EN.01002102.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/21

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 May 2020 — Csanád Szegedi v European Parliament

(Case C-628/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Parliament - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid)

(2020/C 287/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Csanád Szegedi (represented by: K. Bodó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Csanád Szegedi is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Csanád Szegedi is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         2,001,493
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         228,095,902
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               5,375,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    26,967,113
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         74,442,451
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           75,177,000
<LOANS>                                        196,027,388
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,657,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 318,611,396
<DEPOSITS>                                     228,095,902
<SHORT-TERM>                                   57,288,267
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            4,051,937
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          21,850
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 318,611,396
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                13,880,178
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              7,189,133
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               895,486
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               21,964,797
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             8,933,074
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,790,003
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          10,174,794
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  400,679
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             9,517
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                5,614,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,117,089
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     5,117,089
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0        
<CHANGES>                                      0        
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,000,944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.86     
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.77     
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.44     
<LOANS-NON>                                    1,590,287
<LOANS-PAST>                                   1,600,000 
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               739,000   
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0         
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,405,000 
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  179,000   
<RECOVERIES>                                   30,000  
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,657,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,657,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,211,000
        


</TABLE>
# C_2018161EN.01005201.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/52

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council

(Case T-46/18) (1)

1

((Declining of jurisdiction))

(2018/C 161/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Milano (Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, M. Bauer and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of its 3579th meeting in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’) in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the EMA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T 46/18 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court declines jurisdiction in Case T 46/18 in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the action.

| 2. | The decision on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and by the Regione Lombardia (Lombardia Region, Italy) is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The decision on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and by the Regione Lombardia (Lombardia Region, Italy) is reserved.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

1

---
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of Periodic Financial Report **

**by      the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                      |                                 |                                 |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Date: November              17, 2006 | By:                        | /s/ Dennis              Calvert |
|                                      | Dennis              Calvert          |
|                                      | Chief              Executive Officer |
|                                      |                                         |                                 |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Date: November              17, 2006 | By:                                | /s/ Dennis              Calvert |
|                                      | Dennis              Calvert                  |
|                                      | Interim              Chief Financial Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 relating to the 1991 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option
Plan and subsequent amendment (commission file No.'s 33-74148, 33-89222, and
333-3670), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 for the registration of 31,389
shares (commission file No. 33-94006), and the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (commission file No. 333-82905) of our report, dated December 8, 1998
(January 8, 1999, as to Note 8 to the September 30, 1998 financial Statements),
with respect to the 1998 financial statements of XATA Corporation, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1999.


                                       McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP




Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 28, 1999
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of  Milestone  Scientific,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Leonard Osser, Chief
Executive  Officer of  Milestone,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as
adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that: (1) The
Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of Milestone.


                                            /s/ Leonard Osser
                                            ----------------------
                                            Leonard Osser
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            March 31, 2005


                                       45
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Russell Harvey, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered August 16, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the proof of identification was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that the undercover officer’s identification testimony was legally sufficient to support the verdict. The officer had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the drug transaction *(see, People v Sutton,*161 AD2d 612; *People v Watson,*111 AD2d 419). Furthermore, the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116; *People v Reyes,*118 AD2d 666).

Moreover, *resolution of issues of*credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495; *People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). The jury’s determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Mangano, P. J., Hooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Order entered March 27, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01293
- CV VERONICA JOHNSON, Appellant

V. THE HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF THE CITY OF DAL LAS, TX HIDDEN RID GE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 05397
- B



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this appeal has not been filed because appellant has not requested it

. By letter dated January 11, 2019, w e directed appellant to file, within ten days, written verification she had requested the record. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in the appeal b e ing submitted without the reporter’s record

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). To dat e, however, appellant has not complied. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See id. As the clerk’s record has been filed, we further ORDER appellant to file her opening brief no later than April 26, 2019.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE